West Virginia Democrat. [volume] (Charles Town, W. Va.) 1885-1890, 1887-10-14
THE VIRGINIA HABEAS CORPUS
CASE.
n. y. Times, October II.

n. y. Times, October l..
An application was made to the
Supreme Court of the United States
yesterday for writ of habeas cor
pus in behalf of the Attorney. Gen
eral and one of the District Attor
neys of Virginia, imprisoned for
contempt of the authority of Cir
cult Court Judge Bond in refusing
to obey an injunction prohibiting
them from bringing suits under the
State statute Of last May. known as
the "Coupon Crusher," and a decis-
ion on the application is expected
to-day. The case is one OF great in
terest and Importance outside Of the
State of Virginia, as it involves the
authority of Federal courts to coerce
the officers of States in their action
under State laws which are alleged
to be inconsistent with the Consti-
tuition Of the United States. The
question has an interest and import
ance quite apart from the Virginia
debt question, as the same authority
if upheld, might be exercised in
cases of different character.
1t is unnecessary to say that the
Legislature of Virginia in relation
to the public debt Of the State has
for fifteen years and more been alto
gether discreditable. The contro-
versy IN regard to receiving the cou-
pons of the bonds Of 1871 for taxes
has been waged ever since 1872.
The act Of 1871 provided that the
coupons of the bonds issued under
it should be receivable at and after
maturity for all taxes and dues to
the State, but the very next year an
act was passed prohibiting Collec-
tors from receiving anything but
money in payment of taxes. This
law was declared unconstitutional
by the State Court of Appeals as
impairing the obligation of con-
tract, and the question reached the
Supreme Court of the United States
in 1880, when the same ground was
taken. In 1882 an act was passed
providing that when coupons were
rendered they should be taken, but
that the taxes should also be paid
in money pending a trial to decide
whether the coupons were genuine,
and if the decision was favorable to
the taxpayer the money might be
recovered. This, of course, was in
tended to discourage the rendering
of coupons, but the act was sustain
ed by the Supreme Court, Justice
Field alone dissenting. Subsequent
ly the same tribunal decided that
where coupons were rendered and
other payment refused the tax Off
GERS could not levy upon the prop
erty. of the taxpayer for the salts
faction Of the claims of the State.
1t then went still further and decid-
ed that suits could be brought
against the officers of the State in
the Federal Courts, and injunctions
could be issued TO prevent those
officers from refusing coupons and
levying upon property. Here doc
trine was set up that was new in our
Jurisprudence. The eleventh amend
ment of the Constitution declares
that the judicial power of the United
States shall not extend to suits
against any of the States, but it was
held that this did not prevent suits
against the officers of State, and
that a State officer acting under an
unconstitutional statute might be
restrained by an injunction issued
by a Federal Judge. 1t is to be no
ted that on this question the court
was divided, five judges uniting in
the decision and four dissenting.
One of the five is now dead, and his
place is soon to I've filled, with posi-
bly, an important effect upon future
adjudication upon this point.
In January, 1886, the Legislature
of Virginia took another step toward
killing the coupons. II enacted that
in suits to test the genuineness of
coupons under the act of 1882 no
verdict in their favor should be re-
corded unless the bonds from which
the coupons were cut were produced
in court, and that no expert testi
mony should be admitted. This, of
course, made it next to impossible
to prove the genuineness of the con
pons, and was intended to have that
effect Finally. in May of the pre-
sent year, came the "crusher." This
provided that in all cases in which
coupons had beer rendered for pay
meDt of taxes and payment had not
been made in any other medium the
Attorney General of the State and
the District Attorneys of counties
should begin suits against the tax
debtors and the only issues to be
permitted were the fact of the tender
of the coupons and the genuineness
of the same, and if the latter was not
decided in favor of the debtors the
coupons should be retained by the
State Treasurer-in other words
confscated. Several suits were